Bryn Mawr Classical Review
03.06.01

The production of editions and commentaries on individual lost
tragedies is an important and fruitful field of Classical philology. Frank
Bubel's book on the Euripidean Andromeda is a slightly reworked
version of
his dissertation, prepared under the supervision of Prof. Leif Bergson at
the University of Trier (Germany). Unfortunately, one must say from the
start that it falls far short of the exemplary editions of Bond's
Hypsipyle or Diggle's Phaethon, which Bubel aspires to
emulate (p.1). In many ways, the result is somewhat pedestrian, for
besides summarizing the
existing research Bubel does not offer many new insights.

The
structure of the book is a very short introduction (p. 1) followed by a
bibliography (pp. 2-7). The chapter on Bubel's research on the
Andromeda
(pp. 8-23) centers on three main issues: the prologue, the Echo-scene and
Phineus. Bubel rightly pleads for the opinio communis that Echo did
not appear onstage to speak the traditional iambic prologue, and that the
play instead started directly with an anapaestic monody by Andromeda. In a
balanced discussion of the problem of whether the former lover of the
heroine took part, he comes to a non liquet position. In order to
determine the probable plot, he chooses the methodologically correct path,
comparing and discussing all extant sources of the Andromeda-myth (pp.
24-44). The survey (pp. 24-5) is useful, but one misses a similarly
careful discussion of the archeological evidence. After this, Bubel
provides an outline of the possible order of the fragments (pp. 45-63).
The testimonia, accompanied by a short commentary (pp. 64-70), are then
followed by a "Conspectus siglorum" (p. 71) and the fragments themselves
(pp. 72-83). As Bubel changes the order of Nauck and Mette slightly and
includes a few uncertain fragments, he also offers a "Numerorum
conspectus" (pp. 84-86) before providing a German translation (pp. 87-93)
and a commentary on the individual fragments (pp. 94-158). The useful
appendix on the parodic technique of Aristophanes (pp. 159-169) might have
been better integrated into the discussion of the order of the fragments,
inasmuch as it is central to the real problem of the Andromeda:
most of what we know about this play comes from the parody of it in
Aristophanes'
Thesmophoriazusae. Bubel shows, as others have before him, that we
must assume a great deal of artistic freedom on Aristophanes' part, so
that it
is almost impossible to deduce with any certainty the structure of a
tragedy from a comic distortion of it. At the end, there is an "Index
Graecus" of all extant words of the fragments (pp. 170-175) and an "Index
locorum" (pp. 176-193), which unfortunately lists only passages cited
extensively in the commentary. The separation of text, translation and
commentary is rather impractical for the reader. A better solution might
have been to supply the translation on the facing page and add the
commentary beneath each fragment. The "Conspectus numerorum" would best be
located either at the beginning of such an arrangement or at the end of
the book.

Now to the main point which I have to offer in
criticism: anyone who decides to make an edition of a play ought to have
his own view of it. I can detect almost nothing of this in Bubel's
approach. The reconstruction of the myth is neither original nor clear.
Perhaps the problems cannot be solved at all, but this must be
stated. The basic fact remains that almost all the longer fragments of the
play that we possess are from the parody in Thesm. The link
obviously consists of a very simple plot-structur e, i.e., a hero
(Perseus, Euripides) comes to a strange world (barbarian Ethiopia,
Thesmophoria) in order to free a bound person (Andromeda, Mnesilochos),
who is threatened with death by a monster (KH=TOS, Scythian archer).
Savior and prisoner are linked by a particular relationship, as lovers or
relatives. In the
sequence of tragic parodies which follows the parabasis, Aristophanes
focuses on the notorious Euripidean pattern of anagnorisis followed by
liberation and flight through intrigue. From the evidence of the archer
scene, we can deduce with certainty only that Perseus came to Ethiopia and
fell in love with Andromeda, that she promised herself to him if he could
save her, and that he tried to free her. The Euripidean fragments provide
very scanty evidence for the rest of the story, and the plot can only be
reconstructed in a hypothetical manner, on the basis of other versions and
representations of the myth. Contrary to Ovid's version (Met. IV
664-803), Andromeda's father Cepheus must have played a negative role
(Thesm. 1056 f.) In addition, the fragments offer evidence of an
agon between Perseus and Andromeda's father (who was obviously against a
marriage between the hero and his daughter), an attack by the monster, and
perhaps a nuptial meal near the end. We also know from the testimonia
(5.1.1-5.3.4, pp. 66-68) that Andromeda chose to leave home against the
will of her father and mother, and that at the end of the play Athena
appeared as dea ex machina and set the heroine among the stars.
That is all we know. Regardless of how much one turns the fragments and
the
additional facts about and plays with them, all one can do is to continue
inventing possible solutions. One will never attain any certainty in the
matter, and the best procedure would therefore be to discuss the possible
alternatives.

Bubel sticks very closely to his predecessors. The
opinio communis that the fight between Perseus and the monster took
place
after the first epeisodion and was then reported in a messenger speech is
very probable, but leaves us with a problem: what happened in the four
remaining epeisodia?1 Some have argued for a
complication of the plot through Phineus/Agenor. I doubt that there was a
second messenger speech which described an intrigue and the marriage
feast, as Bubel supposes (pp. 56, 59 f.). An intrigue is nonetheless very
probable and can be deduced from the sequence of plays parodied in
Thesm.,
all of which include an intrigue.2 But if the
intrigue was only reported, what happened in between? Would it not be
better to believe that the planning and development of the intrigue took
place onstage? Is it not also possible that the dramatic messenger speech
reporting the fight with the KH=TOS stands close to the end,
much like a similar speech in IT? This would transfer the climax
close to
the end and heighten the suspense of the dramatic development. The plot
would then be as follows: Andromeda has promised herself to Perseus; at
this point Cepheus appears with Cassiopeia, and they intervene, saying
they are against the marriage. A role might perhaps be played by the
oracle, saying Cassiopeia can expiate her initial offence against the gods
only by sacrificing her daughter to the sea-monster. The life of the wife
would stand against the life of the daughter, and the plot would thus
concentrate on a double
resistance which the tragic hero must overcome, i.e., the parents and the
monster, in order to reach his love. The intrigue might have consisted in
tricking Andromeda's parents. Then Perseus loosens the chains of
Andromeda, at which point the monster attacks. The terrible fight which
ensues would be reported by a messenger who ends with the remark that
Perseus is about to fail. At the last moment Athena intervenes on the side
of her hero and tells of the happy future wedding and the final
katasterismos. Another scenario, similar to IT, could be that
Perseus wins
the fight with the monster toward the end. When he comes back, he would
have to face Cepheus, who does not give up his resistance and wants his
daughter to stay. Just as Iphigeneia and Orestes cheat the barbarian
Thoas, so Perseus and Andromeda trick Cepheus and try to flee over the
sea, but Cepheus, following them with his troops, is about to catch them.
At this dramatic moment, Athena intervenes.

The commentary is
overly based on philological Worterklärung, piling up vast
numbers of parallels. The usefulness of this method is doubtful, and with
the help of
a CD-Rom and TLG disc it would have been much easier to produce such a
commentary. On the other hand, one misses an analysis of the contents of
the myth. What does it mean, after all, when a girl is confronted with a
devouring dragon? Would it not be useful to give a survey on this
fairy-tale motif and possible explanations?3
Might this not even be connected with the anthropological pattern of
initiation?

Bubel's remarks concerning the problem of Andromeda
as a bride of Hades (F 9=122 N) are fairly typical of his approach. Let
us therefore have a look at them, especially verses 4 f. GAMHLI/WI ME\N
OU) CU\N PAIW=NI, DESMI/WI DE/, GOA=SQE M', W)= GUNAI=KES. Bubel
misunderstands the passage as a whole.4
He thinks Andromeda really was such a bride, whereas our text speaks of
this more as of a topos.5 For the motif and
its anthropological background, see the excellent article of R. Seaford,
"The Tragic Wedding," JHS 107 (1987) 106-130, which Bubel does not
know. For other
structural parallels between marriage and sacrifice, see H. Foley,
Ritual
Irony (Ithaca and London 1985) 65-105. To the series of parallels (p.
109) to the "Hades-Hochzeit" one could add IA 461. The cases of
Iphigeneia, Macaria or Polyxena are slightly different, as they are real
brides as well. As in many similar passages, especially in IA,
Euripides
plays with the special tragic irony of this topos: Andromeda says it is
impossible to sing the hymenaeus to her, but shortly thereafter the male
hero comes to save and marry her. Euripides plays with the paradox and the
ambivalence of marriage and paean. Since Bubel as a strict
Wortphilologe
has no feeling for this underlying tendency in Euripides, he misses the
point. Marriage is not only a happy event, but is also associated with
death on the part of the women, just as the hymenaeus is also associated
with lamentation (see Seaford 113 f.); to sing the hymenaeus would thus
also be, to a certain extent, appropriate for Andromeda, because she has
to die. Euripides strengthens this point with the ambivalent term "paean."
Bubel's commentary to the word is unsatisfactory and partly misleading; I
was unable to verify at all that the paean was originally a song of
lamentation, as he asserts (p. 110). It is in fact an extremely ambivalent
song, much like the gods Apollo and Artemis, to whom it is particularly
addressed: see LSJ s.v. PAIA/N II 1-4; for the paean in
general see V. Blumenthal, RE 36 (1942) 2340-62 and the forthcoming
monograph of Lutz Käppel. It is a versatile song, where joy and
threnos are closely connected (as in marriage) and easily change one to
the other.
Although Bubel's translation of DESMI/WI [i.e., PAIW=NI] "mit einem den
Fesseln gem&aumlßen Gesang" is
correct,
the parallel U(/MNOS DE/SMIOS A. Eum. 306,
which he supplies on
p. 110, does not fit. The Furies intend to lay a magic spell on the mind
of their opponents, whereas in our passage
the adjective has a concrete meaning, because Andromeda is chained. See W.
Mitsdörffer, "Das Mnesilochoslied in Aristophanes'
Thesmophoriazusen,"
Philologus 98 (1954) 81 n. 3. For the binding song in Eum.
see C. A. Faraone, "Aeschylus' U(/MNOS DE/SMIOS (Eum. 306) and
Attic Judicial Curses," JHS 105 (1985) 150-154, and Y. Prins, "The
Power of the Speech Act: Aeschylus' Furies and Their Binding Song,"
Arethusa 24 (1991) 177-195.

As far as the rather exceptional
anapaestic
prologue is concerned, there is an inconsistency on p. 45; whereas Bubel
rightly recalls IA (p. 14), he says later on (p. 45) that this
formal
device is "among the extant plays of Euripides without parallel."

Bubel also does not know the translation of the fragments by D.
Ebener, Euripides. III (Berlin/Weimar 1979) 239-244, who is in
favor of a
participation of Phineus; Ebener (p. 243) does not adhere to the opinio
communis followed by Bubel (p. 60), that the shepherds of F 37 bring
milk and wine to restore Perseus, who has
been exhausted by the fight against the monster, but suggests instead that
the fragment has to do with the final wedding scene. I would add that this
fragment has unnoticed Dionysiac implications and is reminiscent of the
idyllic scenery of the first messenger speech of E. Ba.

F
7: The
apparatus (p. 73) shows that Bubel has simply followed the references of
Nauck and Mitsdörffer without rechecking them. Therefore, Nauck's
mistake
(followed by Mitsdörffer, p. 69 n. 2) in attributing PROSAUDW= SE
TA\N E)N A)/NTROIS to Hermann instead of Bothe is repeated.6 Hermann reads with Seidler PRO\S *AI)DOU=S SE\ TA\N
(ap. Matthiae, Eur. vol. IX [Lipsiae 1829] p. 45). PROSA/IDOUS',
accepted by Bubel, is originally a conjecture by Elmsley; whether Dobree
(cf. also p. 102) followed someone else or was the
first to read PROSA/IDOUSA I was unable to discover. Bubel
accepts as the best solution PROSA/IDOUS' A)UTA\S (coni. Burges) without
noting in his commentary (p.102) that this was already
done by Mitsdörffer (p. 69 f.). Furthermore, Bubel does not know the
suggestion of Ole Thomsen (Class. et Med. 39 [1988] 16, that one
ought to read at Thesm. 1018 KLU/EIS; W)= PRO\S A)XOU=S SE\ TA=S E)N
A)/NTROIS, (KATA/NEUSON ...), and in addition fails to discuss the
version accepted by Coulon.7 To the argument
against Nauck's A)PO/PAUSAI (p.103), one could add that this
would create hiatus (cf. Mitsdörffer 70 n. 4). I wonder whether it is
not possible to take the A)PO/PAUSON
with the participle PROSA/IDOUS' ("stop singing") like
PAU=E plus participle (cf. Ar. Pax 326 PAU='
O)RXOU/MENOS) instead of reading it as an absolute expression
("stop!"), as Bubel does in his translation (p. 87).8 If one accepts A)PO/PAUSAI -- perhaps the
hiatus was deliberate --, it might be read like PAU=SAI plus
participle (cf. E. Hipp. 706 PAU=SAI LE/GOUSA).

F 20:
Bubel does not seem to know the new edition of the comic fragments PCG by
Kassel-Austin. In the apparatus of this fragment, he does not compare
Eubulus F 26 K.-A., vol. V, p. 204, published in 1986. The older edition
of this fragment in Kock is not in II 74 [sic: p. 76], but in vol. II, p.
174. In the text, contrary to K.-A. and likewise Nauck F 129, Bubel
accepts EI)/SHI XA/RIN (Suda s.v. EI)/SHI) instead
of E(/CEIS XA/RIN (B Schol. Med. 476). In the
commentary, p. 132 he argues for the lectio difficilior without
referring
to K.-A.

In conclusion, philologists interested in Andromeda
will
need to make use of this edition, but it is in the end disappointing. The
final word on this particular play has not been spoken yet: let us await
what Prof. Richard Kannicht will tell us about it in the forthcoming fifth
volume of TrGF.

[4] The
translation of the verse, on the contrary, is acceptable (p. 88).

[5] On p. 39 he says that the chorus wanted to sing a
hymenaeus for Andromeda, but she refused it (cf. also 31 n. 4). On p. 41
he speaks more appropriately of a comparison of Andromeda's sacrifice
with a wedding (pp. 42 f. with n. 54 as well).

[7] For the text-critical
information concerning this fragment I refer to C. Austin, "Observations
critiques sur les Thesmophories d'Aristophane," DWDWNH 19
(1990) 28. I thank Prof. Colin Austin for
sending me this article, which otherwise would not have been available to
me.